Play Nice Referendum - Indigenous Voice in Parliament - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Link to the proposed Referendum, from the Referendum Working Group:

(Edited 6 April 2023)

These are the words that will be put to the Australian people in the upcoming referendum as agreed by the Referendum Working Group (made up of representatives of First Nations communities from around Australia):

"A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"

As well as that, it will be put to Australians that the constitution be amended to include a new chapter titled "Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples".

The details would be:


View attachment 1636890

The Prime Minister has committed to the government introducing legislation with this wording to parliament on 30 March 2023 and to establishing a joint parliamentary committee to consider it and receive submissions on the wording, providing ALL members of Parliament with the opportunity to consider and debate the full details of the proposal.

Parliament will then vote on the wording in June in the lead up to a National Referendum.

The ANU has issued a paper responding to common public concerns expressed in relation to the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice here:

Indigenous Voice to Parliament | Australian National University

Responding to common concerns about an aboriginal and torres strait islander voice First Nations portfolio Background

www.anu.edu.au

Summary details of the key points from this paper may be found in Chief post here:

The Uluru Statement from the Heart:

Not specifically No. In any case it does not form part of the Referendum proposal.

View attachment 1769742

Seeing as things have gotten a bit toxic in here, let's try to return things to a more civil tone.

The following will result in warnings to begin with, and if said behaviour continues will be escalated:

• referring to another poster as racist without direct provocation.
• dismissing or deriding another poster's lived experience.
• personal attacks or one line posts designed solely to insult or deride.

You might notice that the final rule is from the board rules. Thought we should probably remember that this is against the rules in case it's been forgotten.

Let's play nicely from here, people.

 

[ElectricG]

Fair enough if you disagree. Tell me why, though. Set me straight. And I do mean that with respect, G.

It’s just one of those “the worst of the left” type posts that I don’t recall you normally making.

In one part it’s taking the No argument to its most extreme, and then proceeding to mock that argument. Part of the No argument is that affording certain privileges to one race in the constitution means the constitution will now be imbalanced in how it sees the country’s citizens. You characterise this as No voters thinking it’s “a stab at ethno-separatism” to conjure up imagery of separate drinking fountains, and make their side seem ridiculous. They would just prefer the constitution to treat everybody the same. That’s it. End of.

The other part is outright bullsh*tting, imo. Having a declaration about your people and the fact that they were here first (the subtext being their unique right to be here) is a privilege. Being the only people with a “voice to parliament” is a privilege regardless of its limitations. These are plainly true statements, and you call them lies.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Take the political team out of it ffs. I dont care about that and neither should you

The voice is gone. Over. Finished. Next steps needed

What is the downside to auditing an incredible amount of funding currently being wasted, siphoned, spent elsewhere and redistributing it properly?

The fact all the yes vote is against such an obvious improvement just shows how little you care about outcomes compared to politics. No better than no voters. Worse in fact, at least you know where they stand...

As someone until recently been in Federal Government I can assure you all Government granting programs are subject to audit by the Australian National Audit Office.

What the Productivity Commission found in its recent review of spending was that it wasn't overly effective. In other words, generally the correct processes were being followed and monies accounted for per the program Guidelines and in accordance with Dept of Finance policies etc, but the actual impact of the program/spending was not achieving overall objectives.

While an important part of any robust spending evaluation, generally audit parameters are usually narrow and look at compliance with the rules. They arent necessarily going to identify alternative options for how the money could be targeted to achieve better outcomes. That in part, was what the Voice was hoping to assist with.

 

[mcnulty]

… you wanna try again and if you’re gonna disagree actually point out where what I said was wrong, or more importantly any different to your point cause you’ve pretty much just quoted me but said I was wrong.

How can you argue it was a “lie“ suggesting wouldn’t accomplish anything when it hadn’t been implemented yet? It’s a contention, just like the argument it would be effective.

We don’t know how it would have panned out.

 

[Romeoh1]

How can you argue it was a “lie“ suggesting wouldn’t accomplish anything when it hadn’t been implemented yet? It’s a contention, just like the argument it would be effective.

We don’t know how it would have panned out.

What we have now isn’t helping much, and hasn’t for a long time-so we do know how that has been panning out and how a continuation of the same set ups would continue to pan out. I voted yes because I saw the direct voice from the indigenous as a real chance to improve things- a chance for a positive impact. I can’t really comprehend what it would have cost anyone to vote yes. How would it have impacted negatively on your life for instance?

 

[mcnulty]

What we have now isn’t helping much, and hasn’t for a long time-so we do know how that has been panning out and how a continuation of the same set ups would continue to pan out. I voted yes because I saw the direct voice from the indigenous as a real chance to improve things- a chance for a positive impact. I can’t really comprehend what it would have cost anyone to vote yes. How would it have impacted negatively on your life for instance?

I don’t think it would have at all, which is why I voted Yes. But I’m very sceptical much would have changed, as is quite frankly every yes voter I know.

But many who didn’t think it would change things weren’t prepared to vote it in. I can respect that

 

[Kram]

Funny that one of the great lies peddled from the No side was that the voice wouldn’t change anything

I honestly believe that the thing was pretty tokenistic and reality would've done bugger all to actually improve or change anything, hence the total indifference.

 

[Osho]

… you wanna try again and if you’re gonna disagree actually point out where what I said was wrong, or more importantly any different to your point cause you’ve pretty much just quoted me but said I was wrong.

Just as a point of logic, how is not changing anything the same as not doing any good? Perhaps colloquially, but not doing any good does not exclude causing harm, and may imply wasteful action, whereas not changing anything may not necessarily.

And how can one be lying about the future if they believe that to be the case? If you could show they were being disingenous, then you could claim they are lying about their beliefs. If one has a sincere belief about the future, and the future turns out differently, that would be being wrong, rather than lying, as I understand it.

 

[Kram]

The worst thing about it going down is many Indigenous Australians will see it as a personal slap in the face, potentially only creating more division. All over something that would've done **** all anyway.

 

[MP_]

The worst thing about it going down is many Indigenous Australians will see it as a personal slap in the face, potentially only creating more division. All over something that would've done **** all anyway.

Do you think student representative councils at schools do **** all? I've seen amazing things occur at schools because the SRC listened to the kids and gave ideas to schools to solve problems. saying this wouldn't have done anything is very close minded, it had the potential to do amazing things.

 

[Cosmic Energy]

The worst thing about it going down is many Indigenous Australians will see it as a personal slap in the face, potentially only creating more division. All over something that would've done **** all anyway.

Well we’ll never know now will we?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

The worst thing about it going down is many Indigenous Australians will see it as a personal slap in the face, potentially only creating more division. All over something that would've done **** all anyway.

the first part of your post is correct. A massive kick in the guts. The second part is speculation, widely used to justify the first part.

 

[Kram]

saying this wouldn't have done anything is very close minded, it had the potential to do amazing things.

In your opinion.

I disagree.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

In your opinion.

I disagree.

hence you voted no, knowing it was a slap in the face?

 

[MP_]

In your opinion.

I disagree.

what are your thoughts on student representative councils?

 

[Kram]

hence you voted no, knowing it was a slap in the face?

No I put in an informal vote because of the indifference, was never going to put no because of it likely to be perceived as an insult.

 

[MP_]

No I put in an informal vote because of the indifference, was never going to put no because of it likely to be perceived as an insult.

why wouldn't you have voted yes then, if it wasn't going to do anything voting yes wouldn't matter to you but it did to them as it is what they thought would help, then you could feel better that your role in this wasn't a slap in the face to first nations people as you just mentioned.

 

[phantom13]

How can you argue it was a “lie“ suggesting wouldn’t accomplish anything when it hadn’t been implemented yet? It’s a contention, just like the argument it would be effective.

We don’t know how it would have panned out.

It would have accomplished two things.
1- honored the request of indigenous Australians and the statement from the heart
2- ensured that the advisory body couldn’t have been removed

That’s already two effective changes so… it won’t do anything, yeh, lie.

 

[phantom13]

I honestly believe that the thing was pretty tokenistic and reality would've done bugger all to actually improve or change anything, hence the total indifference.

Just as a point of logic, how is not changing anything the same as not doing any good? Perhaps colloquially, but not doing any good does not exclude causing harm, and may imply wasteful action, whereas not changing anything may not necessarily.

And how can one be lying about the future if they believe that to be the case? If you could show they were being disingenous, then you could claim they are lying about their beliefs. If one has a sincere belief about the future, and the future turns out differently, that would be being wrong, rather than lying, as I understand it.

See my response above, or don’t, I don’t really care.

It was a lie, it remains a lie and if it was your reason for voting no or informally. Cool, might have been worth a bit more consideration.

 

[Kram]

what are your thoughts on student representative councils?

I dunno what's your thought on the current oil price atm?

Has about as much relevance.

why wouldn't you have voted yes then, if it wasn't going to do anything voting yes wouldn't matter to you but it did to them as it is what they thought would help, then you could feel better that your role in this wasn't a slap in the face to first nations people as you just mentioned.

I'm not big on doing things I believe are pretty much pointless just for the sake of it, but hey that's me.

 

[Cosmic Energy]

I was chatting to an old fella there in western Victoria, old Harold Delaney, and he told me that them indigenous people already get $40 billion spent on them every year. Turns out old Harold’s source was Kamahl, indirectly. Now I don’t know if old Harold & Kamahl are right or wrong but there is something wonderfully absurd about that whole sequence.

Anyway I look forward to seeing Kamahl performing at the 2024 grand final.

 

[checkraiseulite]

what are your thoughts on student representative councils?

personally i’m against canteens taking a health food focus.

 

[Kram]

See my response above, or don’t, I don’t really care.

It was a lie, it remains a lie and if it was your reason for voting no or informally. Cool, might have been worth a bit more consideration.

So imo bugger all then, cheers.

 

[MP_]

personally i’m against canteens taking a health food focus.

agree, but if the kids in school have told their src that they should be providign a healthy menu shouldn't the school be listening to that advice?

 

[phantom13]

So imo bugger all then, cheers.

Yeh **** giving indigenous people what they want and need.

 

[Chief]

Mundine today in an interview basically said that they should be pushing towards more treaty.

Then pressed on what that looks like he started rambling about teaming up with corperations.

From the man who said "We are all God's tree creatures. We are all equal in God's face."